400 



SCIENCE 



[N. S. Vol. XLVI. No. 1191 



from all over the country, points to the con- 

 clusion that there is already a wide-spread, 

 though scattered interest in the history of 

 science, and that it is high time to organize 

 it and to devote to these studies at least as much 

 attention as is given to the history of other 

 aspects of human life. The wretchedness of 

 present conditions will he hest depicted by re- 

 marking that, whereas there are hundreds of 

 scholars who earn a living by teaching gen- 

 eral history, or the history of art, of literature, 

 of religion, there is not yet in America a 

 single chair exclusively devoted to the history 

 of science! From my very extensive corre- 

 spondence on this subject, I gather, however, 

 that before long an irresistible pressure will 

 fortunately put an end to this paradoxical 

 situation. 



The purpose of the institute can only be 

 accomplished if its activities be constantly in- 

 spired by a close coordination of the three 

 following points of view. 



There is first the point of view of the histo- 

 rian: The progress of mankind is a function 

 of the development of science. Indeed science 

 is the only process which is really cumulative ; 

 it is also the most international. Hence to 

 give a true picture of the development of civ- 

 ilization, it must be focused on the evolution 

 of scientific thought and practice. 



Secondly, the point of view of the scientist: 

 The evolution of science must be studied to 

 better understand the interrelations of all its 

 branches, and the principles and real signifi- 

 cation of each of them. The elaboration of 

 science into an organic whole implies such 

 historical research. A continuous criticism of 

 the foimdations of science is equally necessary, 

 lest it degenerate into empiricism or into a 

 system of prejudices. This critical work is 

 essentially of an historical nature. The point 

 of view involved is splendidly illustrated in 

 the works of Pierre Duhem and Ernst Mach. 



Thirdly, the point of view of the philosopher, 

 which could also be called the encyclopcedic 

 point of view, the philosopher whom I have in 

 mind being of course a man highly trained 

 in scientific thought and research, but whose 

 interest is mainly a coordinating, a synthetic 



one. It is clear that the more science is spe- 

 cialized, the more it becomes complex and ex- 

 tensive — the more also do some kind of syn- 

 thetic studies become necessary to preserve its 

 organic unity and indeed its very existence. 

 A work of this kind has been more or less suc- 

 cessfully accomplished at different periods by 

 such men as Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, 

 Comte, Coumot, Spencer. It needs must be 

 undertaken over and over again, but it becomes 

 increasingly difficult and is now perhaps be- 

 yond the grasp of any single man. It is not 

 simply a matter of genius— such synthesis 

 does not require more genius now than it did 

 in the fourth century B.C. — ^but the initial 

 stock of knowledge to be mastered is so much 

 greater that the process of classification and 

 assimilation previous to any new synthesis 

 must be partly effected on a cooperative basis.* 



1 beg to repeat that the fundamental idea 

 of the institute is to coordinate these three 

 converging points of view; that is, to organize 

 • — for the first time — a systematic collaboration 

 between scientist, historian and philosopher, 

 and so to make the accomplishment of their 

 highest task iwssible, despite the increasing 

 wealth and intricacy of specialized knowledge. 

 These points of view complete and balance 

 each other. He who separates them simply 

 proves that he has failed to understand the 

 purpose that we try to accomplish. 



One may object that the cooperative work 

 which we are advocating is already possible 

 now — without a new institute — and that our 

 universities already bring together some of 

 the men whose collaboration is needed. The 

 objection, however, is not valid, because, even 

 if the right men happen to belong to the same 

 university, economic conditions will generally 

 prevent them from devoting themselves en- 

 tirely to an activity of great amplitude and 

 duration which does not pay. Besides, we can 

 not depend on such chance combinations : this 

 synthetic work must be carried through in a 

 systematic way, with sufficient completeness 



2 This is especially true for all tlie historieal ma- 

 terial. The encyclopaedist must take the whole 

 past into account; yet, he has no time to pursue 

 historical investigations. 



